For the record, nobody was trying to ban abortion, nobody was trying to ban contraceptives, and nobody was trying to bring back the stone age. It's called scare tactics. Just because they work on the "smart people" does not make the irrational fears real

Phatscotty wrote:I thought it was just Democrats telling women they are pissed.

For the record, nobody was trying to ban abortion, nobody was trying to ban contraceptives, and nobody was trying to bring back the stone age. It's called scare tactics. Just because they work on the "smart people" does not make the irrational fears real

Phatscotty wrote:I thought it was just Democrats telling women they are pissed.

For the record, nobody was trying to ban abortion, nobody was trying to ban contraceptives, and nobody was trying to bring back the stone age. It's called scare tactics. Just because they work on the "smart people" does not make the irrational fears real

Isnt a significant portion of conservative america trying to do that?

Isnt it within their democratic right (to try)?

/shrug

I don't think so. There is a difference between drawing a line at handing out condoms in schools to 6 year olds and banning contraceptives.

But I'm just anAmerican who could care less about either abortion or contraceptives...... ::shrug shrug::

Phatscotty wrote:I thought it was just Democrats telling women they are pissed.

For the record, nobody was trying to ban abortion, nobody was trying to ban contraceptives, and nobody was trying to bring back the stone age. It's called scare tactics. Just because they work on the "smart people" does not make the irrational fears real

Well for me and all my female friends, it was the dumbass comments on rape that did it. No one had to tell us anything, the ignorant comments made by Romney, Murdouck and that other guy were pretty easy to understand, even for us womenfolk in between our cooking and laundry chores.

Phatscotty wrote:I thought it was just Democrats telling women they are pissed.

For the record, nobody was trying to ban abortion, nobody was trying to ban contraceptives, and nobody was trying to bring back the stone age. It's called scare tactics. Just because they work on the "smart people" does not make the irrational fears real

Well for me and all my female friends, it was the dumbass comments on rape that did it. No one had to tell us anything, the ignorant comments made by Romney, Murdouck and that other guy were pretty easy to understand, even for us womenfolk in between our cooking and laundry chores.

And would you feel the same way, if, Obama, or Joe Biden said the same exact thing? or something even worse. Hey, I heard Joe Biden saying something about putting black people back in chains, or something.

Does that mean the Democrats are all racist? And that Republicans are totally awesome?

I'm not sure exactly what Romney said about rape or abortion, but he has a record of actions, which serves better than words.

Phatscotty wrote:I thought it was just Democrats telling women they are pissed.

For the record, nobody was trying to ban abortion, nobody was trying to ban contraceptives, and nobody was trying to bring back the stone age. It's called scare tactics. Just because they work on the "smart people" does not make the irrational fears real

Well for me and all my female friends, it was the dumbass comments on rape that did it. No one had to tell us anything, the ignorant comments made by Romney, Murdouck and that other guy were pretty easy to understand, even for us womenfolk in between our cooking and laundry chores.

And would you feel the same way, if, Obama, or Joe Biden said the same exact thing? or something even worse. Hey, I heard Joe Biden saying something about putting black people back in chains, or something.

Does that mean the Democrats are all racist? And that Republicans are totally awesome?

I'm not sure exactly what Romney said about rape or abortion, but he has a record of actions, which serves better than words.

Romney changed his stance on issues to get elected. His stance has nothing to do with his beliefs. Read up on his stance on abortion when he ran for Guvnah of Massachusetts. He is classless and only in it for the money and power. People saw right through him.

whitestazn88 wrote:I think the idea of Roe V Wade being overturned was also a pretty big factor, outside of racial demography.

Roe vs Wade? Really? Demagoguery for simpletons. Another example of the mass ignorance Obama banked on to win (successfully). Meaning of course you're probably right. How sad is that?

It's pretty ignorant to say that Obama voters are deluded. The Republican base is, has been, and will likely always forever be the "less thinking" demographic. The problem isn't that the voters aren't getting the Romney message, the problem was that with today's mediums, they got the message loud and clear. If I have the choice between the lesser of two evils, I'm going to go with the Reagan evil instead of the Rand evil.

Oh for f*ck's sake. This again? Just because a state is "more educated" does not mean the educated people in that state voted for Obama.

Lootifer wrote:@ JB: Good job on being a "problem continuer" with your (albeit probably unintentional) post that suggests you must have a collage degree to be intelligent.

You're propaganda is just as bad as Phatscos

You missed the point of what I was responding to entirely. Entirely. So did Greek.

There is a correlation between education and which candidate you support. So to say that only ignorant people voted for Obama, sounds scandalous at best, and racist at worst.

thegreekdog wrote:Oh for f*ck's sake. This again? Just because a state is "more educated" does not mean the educated people in that state voted for Obama.

No, but it is a strongly suggestive wink when all the best educated states went one way, and all the worst educated states went the other way. You should see the sates divided by GDP per capita. Looks quite similar.

notyou2 wrote:Romney changed his stance on issues to get elected. His stance has nothing to do with his beliefs. Read up on his stance on abortion when he ran for Guvnah of Massachusetts. He is classless and only in it for the money and power. People saw right through him.

True Story. He's ambitious, not honest.Worse, now I have a very low opinion of Paul Ryan too, and I used to like him as a person.

Lootifer wrote:@ JB: Good job on being a "problem continuer" with your (albeit probably unintentional) post that suggests you must have a collage degree to be intelligent.

You're propaganda is just as bad as Phatscos

You missed the point of what I was responding to entirely. Entirely. So did Greek.

There is a correlation between education and which candidate you support. So to say that only ignorant people voted for Obama, sounds scandalous at best, and racist at worst.

thegreekdog wrote:Oh for f*ck's sake. This again? Just because a state is "more educated" does not mean the educated people in that state voted for Obama.

No, but it is a strongly suggestive wink when all the best educated states went one way, and all the worst educated states went the other way. You should see the sates divided by GDP per capita. Looks quite similar.

In order to show a correlation between education and which candidate one supports, you need to show that correlation. Showing a correlation between a state that is educated with how many electoral votes went to a particular candidate does not support that correlation. I do understand what you're trying to prove, but you haven't proved it. This is the same thing as when you tried to prove that Democrats pay taxes and support welfare-receiving Republicans by showing the states with an overall net tax paid compared to states with an overall net tax unpaid. Your conclusions with respect to the data are completely incorrect.

In an interesting result, level of education seemed to make little difference in a particular voter's preference. Obama led Romney by only 2 points among college graduates, 50 percent to 48 percent, almost exactly the result in the general population.

And Obama only did 1 point better among voters who don't have a college degree.

In fact, the more education a voter had, the more likely they were to vote for Romney, to a point, though the gap never increased beyond 4 points. However, among voters with the highest levels of education, those with schooling beyond the undergraduate level, support for Obama jumps to 55 percent, and drops to 42 percent for Romney, a 13-point gap not seen where else along that spectrum.

So what you're saying is, the way this needs to be spin, is that;People who make a habit of more critically engaging their brain vote for Obama.

However, among voters with the highest levels of education, those with schooling beyond the undergraduate level, support for Obama jumps to 55 percent, and drops to 42 percent for Romney, a 13-point gap not seen where else along that spectrum.

Juan_Bottom wrote:So what you're saying is, the way this needs to be spin, is that;People who make a habit of more critically engaging their brain vote for Obama.

However, among voters with the highest levels of education, those with schooling beyond the undergraduate level, support for Obama jumps to 55 percent, and drops to 42 percent for Romney, a 13-point gap not seen where else along that spectrum.

Yes, post-graduates in the art history of western Spain are really using their brains critically.

I was just saying that from a high level spending money on education is seldom a bad idea (compared with, say, drone strikes or oil subsidies).

Additionally the actual return on investment for something so broad brush as "education" is impossible to work out. But as I say, its hardly an area I personally think should be a high priority for spending cuts.

Last edited by Lootifer on Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.